Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

Austin wrote:It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

Problem is not that we would save the day with this kind of make do solutions. Problem is this puts a full stop on whatever little indigenous development that we have been doing. We don't do any work for tomorrow side by side and next time we are back to square one. For example if GOI says, OK lets use M88 core for now and we will fund (adequately) a parallel program wherein we will make Kabini better and replace the M88 core with it ASAP. But these things don't happen. Today we take M88 core, seat with thumbs up our ass and next time we beg for some other core. There is no breaking of the vicious cycle. Even with the current dispensation there is no light at the end of the tunnel so far.

2. We keep working on Kabini core for another decade and keep assembling 100% GE 404 / 414 engines.

Option 1 is better this way we will learn the production issues of a 60% Kaveri.

Actually it's not ... 100% production with "right kind" of ToT (and not screwdrivergiri a la AL-31FP) is way better from tech/design capability building perspective, than this 100%-core-plumbing-in-an-turbofan scam that is being foisted upon us.

Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is an absolute must, from building capability stand-point.

Rest all, is not even tinkering in the periphery ...

Going into these details would mean lot of verbose posts from me - for which, I wouldn't have the b/w currently.

Austin wrote:It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

IMHO, much more than three engines are changed over the lifetime of an aircraft.

Maybe he is talking statistically in terms of costing, repair infrastructure and investment in propulsion hardware and storage/spares and shop visit rates.

one would love to see what assumptions were made to arrive at these figures.

It is a fairly broad-banded guesstimate at best. Nothing more. Too many variables are unknown to forecast with any degree of certainty.

maitya wrote:Actually it's not ... 100% production with "right kind" of ToT (and not screwdrivergiri a la AL-31FP) is way better from tech/design capability building than this 100%-core-plumbing-in scam that is being foisted upon us.

Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is absolute must from building capability stand-point.

Rest all, is not even tinkering in the periphery ...

Going into the details would mean lot of verbose posts from me - for which, I wouldn't have the b/w currently.

If right kind of TOT is available people would have just bought it off the shelf , No one is willing to part its own crown jewels even if the price is right , Much like India wont be selling its own crown jewel technology on missile program or nuclear even if the price is right.

Right now the approach of getting Core from France and get the Kaveri going even if its 50 % imported or 50 % indiginous depending how one looks is the Glass is Half Full or Half Empty , Thats the quickest way to get a DRDO Engine inside Tejas and other program.

They can always have their own parallel program to build their own core as part of future technologies even if that takes decade or more at some point we will reach that stage , It does not mean we keep importing 100 % GE Engine for the next 15 years just because some one is not willing to give us core technology and we loose the 60 % gain we got from Kaveri so far in the bargain

maitya wrote:Actually it's not ... 100% production with "right kind" of ToT (and not screwdrivergiri a la AL-31FP) is way better from tech/design capability building than this 100%-core-plumbing-in scam that is being foisted upon us.

Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is absolute must from building capability stand-point.

Rest all, is not even tinkering in the periphery ...

Going into the details would mean lot of verbose posts from me - for which, I wouldn't have the b/w currently.

If right kind of TOT is available people would have just bought it off the shelf , No one is willing to part its own crown jewels even if the price is right , Much like India wont be selling its own crown jewel technology on missile program or nuclear even if the price is right.

Right now the approach of getting Core from France and get the Kaveri going even if its 50 % imported or 50 % indiginous depending how one looks is the Glass is Half Full or Half Empty , Thats the quickest way to get a DRDO Engine inside Tejas and other program.

They can always have their own parallel program to build their own core as part of future technologies even if that takes decade or more at some point we will reach that stage

India has always been plagued by lack of engines starting with the HF 24 project.

IIRC, The amrekis went to great lengths to take out an engine factory in egypt with the help of the israelis. We were hoping to enter an airframe for engine swap seal with these guys.

If the core technology is tech transferred to us, the India engine market will dry up forever. So there is a serious cartel to keep this from happening.

M88 core may come but maybe also with serious limiting conditions.

We simply don't have the guys to do the core ourselves and this is the sad fact. If such talent does emerge, someone is sure to recognise this and to take them out.

It has already happened in some of our other programs, no??

So if we are serious, then do it completely classified and protect your assets

I am also confident that we will ultimately overcome, just like ISRO did, in spite of all the technology denials we were subjected to.

Austin wrote:It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

IMHO, much more than three engines are changed over the lifetime of an aircraft.

Maybe he is talking statistically in terms of costing, repair infrastructure and investment in propulsion hardware and storage/spares and shop visit rates.

one would love to see what assumptions were made to arrive at these figures.

It is a fairly broad-banded guesstimate at best. Nothing more. Too many variables are unknown to forecast with any degree of certainty.

In a way you are right. But it ain't that hard to get a reasonably correct number, if you don't want a number to forth decimal place. As a first order approximation, Just take Design life of Aircraft and divide it by Engine Design Life. For Su30MKI its 6000hrs/2000hrs = 3 sets. Western airframes typically have 8000hrs airframe life while 3000-4000hrs Engine life. So 2-2.5 engine sets per fighter. But unlike the Russians, who throw the entire engine after design life is over and put new engine, Western OEMs use the same engine while they keep replacing modules as per life schedule. Typically modules are rated for different life numbers. For example, turbines are replaced within 2000hrs while Compressors might last 6000hrs. If you do the math roughly 2-2.5 engines worth of spares would be used up for one life of Fighter. As such airframes are not married to engines and they are kept shuffling during daily MRO. But when fleetwide numbers are considered, average per fighter comes out to be the same. Unless of coarse the engine has lifing issues, like F404 had it in its early years for example. As an example, complete fleet of Gripen of 250 would have only about 350 engines in their entire life-time. That 350 number includes test prototypes as well so the number for Air force would be around 320 or so. The additional numbers above 250 are as spares for all the nations operating Gripen. On top of this there is a Life Tracking System which helps improve usage of the engines significantly. I see similar Fighter to Engine ratio for Euro Fighter with 1400 engines for 620 planed Fighters. Snecma follows the same philosophy even since M53. GE follows the same one. Even GTRE has picked up this system. So when DRDO chief says 3 engines per LCA, take it with a pinch of salt. As such the current design life for LCA is only 3000hrs (which itself is not fully certified, as far as I can tell). So unless its extended (which of coarse will happen in all probability), it will not see anything other than the first batch of F404s.

India/GTRE will never be able to develop any turbine the way it is going. First we need to develop laboratories with all the test equipment including Flying test bed. There does not seem to be any realization in the minds of Babus and Politicos that Turbine engines are as important as any Nuclear or Space Programme. Anyway going forward we have to develop core fundamental research involving Colleges, Universities and Industries working in metallurgy, Software and engineering.

Thereafter we should pluck the lowest fruit first. For instance, HTFE 25 can be used for IJT, Kaveri can be used for AJT, HTSE 1200 can be used for helos and we should develop our own turboprop engines also for HTT-40 as an offshoot of HTFE & HTSE. Only thereafter we will have the engineering strength to aim for Fighter and passenger airliner engines.

chetak wrote:India has always been plagued by lack of engines starting with the HF 24 project.

IIRC, The amrekis went to great lengths to take out an engine factory in egypt with the help of the israelis. We were hoping to enter an airframe for engine swap seal with these guys.

If the core technology is tech transferred to us, the India engine market will dry up forever. So there is a serious cartel to keep this from happening.

M88 core may come but maybe also with serious limiting conditions.

We have under invested in Engine Program from inception , A new aircraft takes around 15 years from inception to production and every thing in between a new engine takes around 20 years , so before you start with new aircraft you have to start work on new engines 5 years in advance.

There is no Cartel globally to prevent Engine Tech Transfer like MTCR or NPT but every one knows how important is engine technology to them and no one wants to give away their hard earned sweat and blood on the platter , Nor will India gain any thing if any one gave us Engine Technology over the platter and even our technology scope will be limited to how that other guy came about their solution without finding our own path and perhaps a better one. So we need to invest and Try Fail Try before we succeed.

We always blame why the other guys are not giving us x y or z Technology as if its our birth right to get it if we pay money , When we wont share such technology with other if were our own crown jewel of technology

Its only when we achieve parity with Technology has experience shows the other guy wants to give Full TOT with no holds bar because they know we have reached that milestone.

From the discussions here and the opposition to local products it is clear that India will never be a nation able to project its capabilities beyond its boundaries. The only use for India's half-modern- half archaic armed forces is - national defence and perhaps a few "sexy exercises". An air force with 6 refuellers (@ about 30% availability), very limited AWACS (little or no airspace control) and a significant number of frontline fighters from the 60s (Mig-21s), an army with derelict and non-functioning MBTs (T-72s), a navy with less than 10 functional subs at a given time. The Navy is perhaps in the best shape of the lot as long as you only consider the surface fleet. ASW and airspace control are a mess.

Lackeys of foreign companies have spread propaganda like - we won all previous wars with imported weapons, DRDO cannot produce a needle, the LCA = Late Combat aircraft. Forgotten are the significant delays and slippages of the MKI program, hidden from the public eye are the low serviceability rates of roosi weapons. We have amazing examples of individuals here that unashamedly hawk roosi products over domestic and bring their brochures out to gloss over all shortcomings - promise the moon and deliver crap (Mig-29k being a case in point).

So for its vision of the future, India would be OK with the engine being hawked here - a fake indigenous Kaveri - perhaps we could put an Indian cover on the F414 or the M88 or a roosi engine and call it the Kaveri. How does it matter? When there is a war, the politicians will limit the air force to not crossing the LAC or the LOC. The only requirement is that the engine should allow the LCA to fly to Alaska for Red Flag with the only available refueller. IFR is mandatory because without it, the LCA could never reach Alaska to fly in the red flag exercises.

Indian Railways for a while has been flirting with ideas to develop a liquefied natural gas based turbine electric engine derived out of GTRE’s Kaveri engine to power its next generation locomotives in its efforts to reduce its carbon foot print and to move towards greener and eco friendly next generation locomotives for Indian Railways in next few decades . A High-level sub-committee dealing with the project has been brain storming with experts from various fields and still are having discussions with DRDO’s associated labs and even with Russian Railways for collaboration since they are regarded as Global leaders in the development and use of gas-turbine engines in their locomotives. High Ranking Railway official associated with the project explained to idrw.org what are the technological challenges behind the project and several bottlenecks project is likely to face even though the Project is still in infancy stage since High-level sub-committee is yet to submit a detailed project report on it. Gas-turbine Locomotive Technology Russia has Succesful developed and demonstrated most powerful gas-turbine based locomotive in the world when they converted NK-32 engine used in Tu-160 strategic bombers to develop the NK-361 engine which was adapted to be used as LNG gas-turbine unit for Locomotives. NK-361 engine generates 8.3 mega watts of power and can accelerate to a speed of up to 100 kilometres per hour and cover 750 km on a full tank of fuel. Indian Railways is very keen on acquiring this engines for its locomotives which can help later India develop Kaveri based gas-turbine engines but found some technical deficiencies with the engine. NK-361 engines based locomotives are largely used in the Extreme North where weather conditions are usually cold and Russian developers for that reasons carried out modification on the engine to work in harsh cold conditions of Russia, but in India, it is likely to face extreme heat and humid conditions which will require modification of the engine to work in Indian Hot Humid weather conditions for which Russian company has agreed, only if India gives order commitment for 300 locomotives .

Austin wrote:It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

ramana wrote:chetak, The UK offered the Bristol Siddley engine used for the Blackburn for some crores and were rebuffed.

Bristol-Siddeley and Blackburn are company names, saar.

Which aero engine and aircraft specifically did you mean??

we did use the Bristol-Siddeley's older engine, the Orpheus-703 for the marut which is exactly why we hunted around desperately for other engines to replace it and knowing this, we were deliberately blocked, first by the amerkis, and later by an informal cartel so that their business was not affected

The British company had first offered the more powerful Orpheus- 12 engine ... India had to accept Bristol-Siddeley's older engine, the Orpheus-703

Would it be wise to develop a twin engine medium weight fighter of 4/4.5 generation with current Kaveri (81kn) and current Indian available technologies?

- With twin engines wouldn't the Max thrust per engine be lower than typical needed for a single Engine. e.g. Raphael uses M88 (75kn) and Migs use RD-33 (81k + 7%) which are close to Kaveri - Basic structure can be made as close to possible AMCA as possible for carry over (need not match 100% so that it is not delayed) - use only what is available now as Indian tech (radar, flight control systems, missiles) - Every year a slightly upgraded version of the fighter is rolled out with whatever new is developed in that year - Kaveri engine is continually upgraded including feedback from the active use in the fighters - in the interim can we ask for additional few Raphaels fitted with M88 + Kaveri and in a subsequent order both fitted with Kaveri? - AMCA could be a separate project parallel or later and use the learnings from the above

As always pls take the thrust figures with a pinch of salt as atrocious assumptions like 100% efficiency gains etc are assumed - but is a good tool for comparative analysis etc.

Re Maitya, if you are able to put in estimated weight, size and sfc of the engine then this chart will become way more informative (especially for lay persons like me)

Gyanji, the estimated SFC is provided in the chart itself (last but 1 row - you can see "the baseline engine" column value matches quite closely what is provided here).However there are some interesting "unknowns" ... for example the mass inflow rate (your question above, actually "raked up" this question that I've had in my mind for long time).

Let me elaborate a little ...Well you see, GTRE et all are claiming two things ... inlet dia to be ~31inch (=0.7874m) and the mass-inflow rate is 78kg/sec.

Now simple back of the envelope calc would give us Mass Flow Rate = Cross-section area x air density x air speed (NOTE: as "seen" by the engine and not outside air-speed - a turbofan works most efficiently around 0.6-0.7M air in-flow speed, so there are elaborate mechanism is place in the air-intake duct to slow-down the air to those levels etc.)

Assuming Air-density to be 0.8kg/m3 (at approx 3.5Km altitude) and air speed to be 250m/sec, we would get a Mass flow rate of ~97Kg/sec - and not 78Kg/sec as claimed by GTRE.

So either the air-inlet-speed is way lower than 0.6-0.7M (maybe ~0.4M) or there are some other aspects that we don't know (which is fair-enough, given the startegic nature of the program itself).What makes this more interesting is such a lower air-speed may have been a deliberate design decision maybe catering to the flat-rated unobtanium requirement (this may actually be self-imposed, and may not have actually come from IAF SQRs - I don't know).

Added to this, is this recently-reported-scam of replace-the-kabini-core-by-the-M88-core ... which is now being sugar-coated with throwaway statement like 60% indigenous etc ...

Well, all cores are designed with a certain core-inflow value in mind and M88-core etc wouldn't have "self-imposed-constraints" like flat-rating etc. And thus would expect a certain higher mass-flow rate to churn out similar thrust figures ... with those mass-flow rates, Kaveri itself could, theoretically (refer to the chart above), churn out higher much higher thrust values. Yes of course, without corresponding improvement in TeT and OPR values, the Thermal efficiency, and thus the SFC, would suffer when you use the brute mass-flow route to increase thrust.

samirdiw wrote:Would it be wise to develop a twin engine medium weight fighter of 4/4.5 generation with current Kaveri (81kn) and current Indian available technologies?

- With twin engines wouldn't the Max thrust per engine be lower than typical needed for a single Engine. e.g. Raphael uses M88 (75kn) and Migs use RD-33 (81k + 7%) which are close to Kaveri - Basic structure can be made as close to possible AMCA as possible for carry over (need not match 100% so that it is not delayed) - use only what is available now as Indian tech (radar, flight control systems, missiles) - Every year a slightly upgraded version of the fighter is rolled out with whatever new is developed in that year - Kaveri engine is continually upgraded including feedback from the active use in the fighters - in the interim can we ask for additional few Raphaels fitted with M88 + Kaveri and in a subsequent order both fitted with Kaveri? - AMCA could be a separate project parallel or later and use the learnings from the above

Anything wrong with the above approach?

I had posed this same question eons ago and did not get a satisfactory answer.

I think that the efforts to build a new plane around twin Kaveri engines would more or less be the same as, say, designing the new AMCA. May be, that is a reasoning behind not pursuing this option. With the limited resources, it might be better off spending those on a more workable solution as the engine is a proven one(414).

May be private companies can get involved in this. But I doubt there will be any takers with an guarantee that IAF would buy the product. Catch 22 situation. Sigh!

May be, if the government can fund this as a parallel effort with private companies, it might be doable.

A better solution would be to concentrate on UCAVs with Kaveri engine. Build 100s of those suckers. Lower risk and no loss of precious lives in case of failures. That should the futures.

AMCA will be less aerodynamically efficient (in clean config) than Rafale/Mig-29. AMCA like other 5th gen will have higher empty weight, internal fuel capacity and TWR. If you put all of this together, you can realize why AMCA needs a thrust of 200-230 kN.

“One of the most vivid illustrations (In Indo-Russian scientific partnership) is the KAVERI Indian aircraft engine. We have been involved in its development, modification and trials. The project is about to be over soon,” Alexander Mikheev, Director General of Rosoboronexport said in a statement today.

Indranil wrote:AMCA will be less aerodynamically efficient (in clean config) than Rafale/Mig-29. AMCA like other 5th gen will have higher empty weight, internal fuel capacity and TWR. If you put all of this together, you can realize why AMCA needs a thrust of 200-230 kN.

But AMCA will have advantage over Rafale/Mig 29 in loaded configuration, no?

Because of carrying everything inside, AMCA will have no drag penalty, while Rafale/Mig 29 will have drag penalty due to drag.

Got it that AMCA needs an engine that does exist now. While that gets built/bought/designed/takes ages how about going for a twin engine fighter (not AMCA but a 4/4.5) for now using Kaveri(with the basic issues mentioned above solved) that will be able to take on a good portion of Chinese AF?

As there isn't any additional tech needed for that we don't have now it would mean quicker induction as well as a drastic increase in self-reliance that will be a much larger force factor against any country. 300 of these would be a great addition to the air force. There would also be much learning there that can be applied for the next generation. A successful project with reasonable goals will be also a great boost to the scientist and to the IAF on the Indian capabilities.

AMCA project can take its own sweet time as 5th generation without having much impact on capability at that time.

Think Prithvi 1 - Agni 5. Slowly by slowly, we increased the distance and other capabilities. Directly jumping to Agni 5 capabilities could have meant a higher risk of failure to reach that as well as gaps all along the way (similar to the constant gaps the IAF mentions about its air strength).

Wouldnt this approach of launching a twin engine 4/4.5 first be more practical and result oriented?

GE Aviation has broken a two-year silence on a major research project in hybrid electric propulsion with a new white paper that discloses several major advances demonstrated in two experiments since 2015 and that confirms the company is in talks with several potential aircraft makers about using the new technology.

Among traditional propulsion suppliers, Honeywell and Rolls-Royce have been most outspoken about efforts to develop new hybrid propulsion technology. Both companies have partnered to develop a 1MW-class hybrid propulsion system for the Aurora Flight Sciences XV-24A, a demonstrator for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

But GE has been working quietly behind the scenes to build the foundational technology for a similar 1MW-sized powerplant with broad applications across military, commercial, business and general aviation markets, according to a white paper published by the company on 25 August.During two events staged since 2015, GE demonstrated major advances in two key ingredients of any hybrid propulsion system: power generation and electric motors, the document shows.

In the area of power generation, GE modified an F110 engine, a propulsion option for the Boeing F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16, to generate 1MW of electric power. By siphoning compressed air from the core, GE extracted 250kW from the high-pressure turbine and – in and industry first for a two-shaft engine – 750kW from the low-pressure turbine, according to the white paper.

As a megawatt of electric power is equivalent to 1,341hp, the F110 still has plenty of thrust to continue powering even in a single-engined aircraft. A single F110 can generate up to 32,000lb-thrust, which is equivalent to 44,300hp.

By extracting electric power from both modules of the turbine section, GE has created an architecture with a broad array of potential future applications, including military programmes with an interest in laser weapons.

After generating the electric power, GE also has demonstrated an advanced electric motor designed by the company’s research centre in a separate project, according to GE’s white paper. The 1MW motor drove a propeller designed by Dowty, another GE subsidiary. When coupled with a gas generator, such a hybrid propulsion system could produce the same thrust as a large version of the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A turboshaft engine.

The motor itself represents the state of the art in efficiently converting electricity into power. Whereas most aviation motors are designed to achieve 90% efficiency, the new motor demonstrated by GE is 98% efficient, the white paper claims. Importantly, such efficiency means a 1MW motor produces only 20kW of waste heat, rather than at least 100kW if a conventional aviation motor is used. GE has not revealed the size or weight of the device.

“With these two tests over the past two years, GE engineers have set a new benchmark for the aviation industry by extracting a megawatt of power from a modern jet engine while also generating thrust – and also by extracting a megawatt of power from an electric motor in order to drive a propeller,” the white paper says.

By comparison, the Boeing 787 uses six generators to produce a maximum load of 1.4MW of electric power, which the aircraft uses to provide power for de-icing the wing and engine nacelles and pressurising the cabin.

In the future, the aviation industry is contemplating the feasibility of hybrid-electric power systems for a broad range of aircraft, including up to about 150 seats. Airbus has outlined a technology roadmap that leads to a narrowbody-sized hybrid electric demonstrator in about 20 years. Meanwhile, Boeing has teamed up with JetBlue Technology Ventures to fund Zunum Aero, which is designing a hybrid-electric business aircraft and 50-seat regional jet to fly in the early 2020s.

“GE Aviation is currently engaging with several prospective companies on hybrid electric aircraft concepts,” the company says in the white paper.

Meanwhile, GE in 2013 opened a $51 million Electrical Power Integrated System Center (EpisCenter) in Dayton, Ohio. The facility is sized to test electric power systems ranging in size from 500kW to 2.5MW.

“This allows customers to transfer risk and cost to GE, while working to minimise both at entry into service,” the document says.

The issues delineated above have been deemed rectifiable by those in the know. But it seems outside consultancy support will be needed for the same.

Why do they keep saying this shit? Why not just say it needs ~X funds and ~Y time to fix it internally. Constantly needing outsiders to fix our internal R&D problems is not a good approach. Since the last time, the issues were identified what has been the progress made?

Vivek K wrote:From the discussions here and the opposition to local products it is clear that India will never be a nation able to project its capabilities beyond its boundaries. The only use for India's half-modern- half archaic armed forces is - national defence and perhaps a few "sexy exercises".

It's frustrating and the armed forces, govt, and govt owned defense companies all seem to have arrived at a happy balance with no one interested in changing the status quo. Apparently importing defense weaponry has become an "integral" part of foreign policy.

Vivek K wrote:From the discussions here and the opposition to local products it is clear that India will never be a nation able to project its capabilities beyond its boundaries. The only use for India's half-modern- half archaic armed forces is - national defence and perhaps a few "sexy exercises".

Here is my understanding, based on open source:

1) The "French" have agreed to complete the "last mile" problems associated with the Kaveri. This Kaveri should be equivalent to the GE F-404 IN20 (84 kN). Safran claims they will test it on a LCA by 2018 end (needs verification)2) The GE F414 INS6 is up and about - delivered 2, 6 to go - (98 kN)3) Via DTTI, GE India (NOT GTRE) and GE US are uprating the DE F-414 INS6 (for the AMCA - as we know it). The last I came across the target thrust was 110 kN (SJha reports 115 kN). I expect this engine by end of 2018 or so - not sure if that will include testing/certidication

These are "operational" engines.

4) Would like to add the engine being developed for the PAK-FA to this list too - but it is not operational yet. But, I think India will sign for the FGFA ONLY if this engine pans out. (I think India waits to at least mid 2018, perhaps early 2019, to sign the FGFA deal - BUT, only if that new engine is good as advertised.)

There is - as I understand it - some effort, within India, to push some version of teh Kaveri for other purposes (Marine, etc).

I think one (or more) private player/s (Bharat Forge?) have already invested in an "engine".

What I would like to see is a major investment (some $5/more billion) in the engine area - material sciences, manufacturing techniques, supply chain, support, etc. Both from the public and private sectors. Even with such an investment it should take some 20-30 years for all this to mature.

Unless India invests in real large amounts - amount to match the purchase of SE/Rafale/etc, India will not be able to develop *contemporary engines* (they will be able to produce "an" engine, which I doubt will be able to support the expectations of the IAF).

Finally, I did see a post comparing Indian efforts (to fund an engine) with that of UAE funding teh F-16. I do not see such a comparison being valid. Yes, India is paying to get over some problems, but, if one were to follow the DTTI efforts carefully they ALL are JVs and from what I have read so far they are structured with a LOT more discussions before they decide what exactly needs to be done. In the case of #3 the US SD has actually modified its export laws to accommodate the export of certain techs to make the uprating happen. This is not a trivial matter from the US side and also from the Indian side. For India, unlike the UAE, HAS good engineers - real good I may add. The GE engineers in India are not only the largest group outside the US, they actually deal with all the top GE engines. And, there are 700 of them (of a total of 5000+ employees in B'luru). Besides GE has started a manufacturing unit in Pune, which was expected to produce the INS6. I really no reason why the new uprated engine for the AMCA cannot be manufactured in India from day one.

The point/focus of this last para is about Indian technical brains - India has plenty and looks to me they just needed a nudge. Once these brains experience the US + French efforts they will figure out the rest. Yet, India needs to invest heavily to keep this momentum going.

Interesting news. Here they have taken out air from HPC/LPC. IMO eventually we will see integrated electric motors in the jet engine itself.

The civil application will depend upon overall system level efficiency in terms of weight, energy efficiency and reliability. It would boost "all electric" aircraft concept. But the immediate application of interest for mil seems to be directed energy weapons. A key thing is the significantly reduced waste heat in the energy conversion. This should help the 6th gen engine technology to some extent where waste heat management would be a key challenge, both from electricity generation as well as from the weapons themselves.

samirdiw wrote:Why do they keep saying this shit? Why not just say it needs ~X funds and ~Y time to fix it internally. Constantly needing outsiders to fix our internal R&D problems is not a good approach. Since the last time, the issues were identified what has been the progress made?

What if they are simply unable to guarantee a timeline as you are suggesting. Just continue with the research with no end in sight? It's not as though drdo and it's affiliates such as gtre haven't provided such promises on the past.

For immediate threats India needs imports because in home projects can't always deliver what is needed.

For long term security indigenous weapons are a must.

See the inherent problem between the two statements. This jv crap with snecma and ge seems to be a halfway solution. So at least India can make products like dhruv ...

Cain, do we really need the best of the best of the best. Isn't something good enough sufficient enough and with numbers be more than enough? Quantity also has its own quality. Considering our immediate threats don't make their own or have large funds (Pakistan) or make the best (China) isn't our defense stuff good enough?

A few items here and there like a missile or a radar or an SF gun here and there can be bought but entire defense systems?

We are a rich country with poor people. Every dollar is extremely hard earned unlike the petro dollars or the defense imports to rich countries like Saudi that some others make. So every dollar must be spent with that thought in mind especially if it's not an investment for the future.

Regarding the timelines, in my post I wasn't mentioning a specific timeline which they have to adhere to but for the defense industry to come up with their own timeline whatever it may be. Whether the timeline is good enough is a different matter to the defense ministry and they may decide against it in that case. If they say they cannot do it come what may its a different matter and perhaps will provide more inputs to the ministry about the quality of personnel hired.

Last edited by samirdiw on 28 Aug 2017 20:44, edited 2 times in total.

maitya wrote:Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is an absolute must, from building capability stand-point.

A long time ago I heard a very senior GE VP explain (he seemed to have a huge sense of guilt so he had to explain) the rationale behind setting up the J.E.W. Research Center of GE in B'looru.

Cain, do we really need the best of the best of the best. Isn't something good enough sufficient enough and with numbers be more than enough? Quantity also has its own quality. Considering our immediate threats don't make their own or have large funds (Pakistan) or make the best (China) isn't our defense stuff good enough?

A few items here and there like a missile or a radar or an SF gun here and there can be bought but entire defense systems?

We are a rich country with poor people. Every dollar is extremely hard earned unlike the petro dollars or the defense imports to rich countries like Saudi that some others make. So every dollar must be spent with that thought in mind especially if it's not an investment for the future.

Regarding the timelines, in my post I wasn't mentioning a specific timeline which they have to adhere to but for the defense industry to come up with their own timeline whatever it may be. Whether the timeline is good enough is a different matter to the defense ministry and they may decide against it in that case. If they say they cannot do it come what may its a different matter and perhaps will provide more inputs to the ministry about the quality of personnel hired.

Samir, for the most part, we have to go with what the forces say they need. They are in the best position to know whether good, better or best works. There is little room here for compromise. Security is especially a pita for a rich poor county like India. But it's threat situation is also rather unique.

That being said, much can be done in terms of greater investments and support to local rnd and manufacture. Lots of investment. The JV approach however is one, probably easier way out for decision makers which are faced with very demanding services and security scenarios, lethargic psus and indifferent babus.

I think India is on the last stage of imports now. This final round will probably include sef, subs, tankers, 5 gen fighters, uavs and that will be the end of it. Yes it burns but can't be helped and that too will come with more rights than our screwdrivergiri. Big ticket imports will never happen again Inshallah.

But GE has been working quietly behind the scenes to build the foundational technology for a similar 1MW-sized powerplant with broad applications across military, commercial, business and general aviation markets, according to a white paper published by the company on 25 August.During two events staged since 2015, GE demonstrated major advances in two key ingredients of any hybrid propulsion system: power generation and electric motors, the document shows.

In the area of power generation, GE modified an F110 engine, a propulsion option for the Boeing F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16, to generate 1MW of electric power. By siphoning compressed air from the core, GE extracted 250kW from the high-pressure turbine and – in and industry first for a two-shaft engine – 750kW from the low-pressure turbine, according to the white paper.

As a megawatt of electric power is equivalent to 1,341hp, the F110 still has plenty of thrust to continue powering even in a single-engined aircraft. A single F110 can generate up to 32,000lb-thrust, which is equivalent to 44,300hp.

Isn't this close to the F-35B propulsion scheme? they probably can now replace the nacelle thats drives the lift fan with just a electrical conduit. STOVL UAVs would have more benefit due to the weight savings.

And one hopes they would one day put the Kaveri thus configured in a BMP to power a drone killing laser ...

brar_w wrote:No it does not. Notice what jay was referring to - the EJ-200, F414 etc etc etc. He was not talking about the Typhoon, Super Hornet, Gripen, LCA etc. The engines did not dogfight each other, the aircraft did. He was specifically referring to the engine technology.

You cant seperate Engine Technology needed for TVC because a lot of low speed flights and high angle of attack afforded by TVC where your air intake is sucked of air/oxygen but engine still has to to be robust enough to keep working without flaming out , If they try to do MKI like low speed charactesistics and extereme manouverability with TVC chances are the engine will just flame out.

TVC is not something you can randomly fit into any engine without understanding how engine will work in all the regiems of flight and high AOA or NO AOA , this is something an aircraft engine does it but TVC just extends the benchmark to another level

TVC is not a plug and play module obviously but extended engine operating envelop is not, per se, tied to TVC; but rather the super-manoeuvrability requirement of the aircraft. TVC is not an absolute requirement for that. Mig29 has always been fantastic at low speeds without having any TVC whatsoever. The engines were designed to have fantastic high AoA characteristics. But a large part of this capability comes from the air intakes which is not a part of engines, but of aircrafts. So if you say TVC cannot be separated from TVC, then engines cannot be separated from air intakes too. Then would you take weight of air intakes in Engines while calculating T:W..??

Food for thought - TVC do take a toll on the effective thrust one gets finally. I have seen numbers of upto 20% reduction for rectangular outlets. For circular outlet its much less. In that sense F119 is more handicapped with TVC than say 117. Now do we know the numbers which are published are with TVC or without...??